Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 12/20/1995y Draft Minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at the January 3,1996 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 20,1995 5:50-8:55 P.M. FOR Chair Colin Gerety 546-0460 Vice Chair Paul Valentine 493-0100 Council Liaison Will Smith 223-0425 Staff Liaison - Tom Frazier 224-6052 Secretary - Cindy Scott 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Beatty, Sara Frazier, Colin Gerety, Donn Hopkins, Elizabeth Hudetz, Tim Johnson, Ray Moe (late), Paul Perlmutter & Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Egeland (called) and Dolores Highfield (called). STAFF/COUNCIL/GUESTS PRESENT: Tom Frazier, Ron Phillips, Cindy Scott, Susanne Edminster, Gary Diede, Matt Baker, Larry Schneider, Rick Richter, Bruce Juelfs, Kathleen Tracy, Gaylene Rossiter, John Daggett, Eric Bracke - Staff Will Smith - Council Liaison AGENDA: Call to Order Approval of Minutes A. PUBLIC COMMENT B. ACTION ITEMS 1. Transportation Maintenance Fee 2. Transit Development Plan C. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Retreat Review 2. Capital Improvement Program 3. T-NOTES (UPDATES) 4. Board Member Reports 5. Council Liaison Reports 6. Staff Reports 7. Summary/Next Agenda 8. Other Business Gerety called the meeting to order at approximately 5:50 p.m. There was a motion and a second to approve the November 15, 1995 Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 0117ulu1noel &Dlel9*IRBY4116 Tim: It was good, we covered a lot. Paul P.: I liked the retreat very much, I think we accomplished a great deal. Elizabeth: It was good to meet new people. Paul V.: I thought the retreat was very good. I was amazed we had 100% attendance, it was a very good meeting. Alan B.: I echo Paul's sentiments. I think we got better acquainted with each other. Donn: I look forward to the two meetings per month. I think that would be positive with the heavy load. Sara: I, too, enjoyed it very much. I wonder if after the euphoria has gone down a bit, if one longer meeting per month might be better with considerations to staff, perhaps later, maybe 8:45. Colin: We could address this at our first extra meeting, which will be January 3, 1996. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sandy Lemberg: 1) Stated that there was a mistake on the ballot for the Timberline project, in reference to costs. (Packets of information were passed out to the board members and Cindy will mail out copies of information that Mr. Lemberg inadvertently left out of above packets.) Berthoud Bypass, Per Eric: There already is County Road 17, at Mathew, running out of Loveland. I have been using it for 23 years. It has more traffic than 287. Only one alternative uses County Road 17, for about 1/4 mile, so basically we are talking $43,000,000. Could improve County Road 17 for under $10,000,000. The other one is a widening. This is a result of House Bill 1174. CDOT is trying to run it through. The time line on both projects and amendment is January 4, 1996. It started in December 1995 and should wind up in early January 1996, at the peak holiday period. I feel that if the Board feels that these projects are bad, they need to say something right away. Probably over 30 favorable comments in Berthoud. One person said they collected 120, but in three days, I collected 23 comments total, and I am going to keep working. We will show them people are critical. Bracke explained the limitations on the House Bill 1174 dollars. Phillips explained that we are trying to complete the Timberline process by the end of March 1996. This Board should have it on the agenda by January 31, 1996. Colin Gerety asked if there were any board member comments on Timberline, Berthoud, or US Hwy 34. 2 11 Phillips explained that the crux of the matter is that the Regional Transportation Plan was developed using a fiscally constrained budget of what the State told the MPO would be coming in, in the way of federal money until the next so many years. None of the other regions kept the rules. They made their "preferred plan" or vision plan their fiscally constrained plan also. There is a number of projects they knew they couldn't fund that are still in the fiscally constrained plan so it is part of their TIP in other regions. They are getting this new State money that has come through this appropriation through highway projects and our region is not getting any. The people who want these projects, the people in Berthoud, Greeley, and CDOT are asking that they be re-examined in light of new money being available, to see if they would qualify as priority. What Eric explained is that the Berthoud Bypass was in the higher priority group and in the fiscally constrained plan but not at the full amount because there wasn't enough money. Now, there might be enough money, so, do they make it a priority at the higher level of funding? The Greeley Bypass did not make the cut for the higher priority on the point system. It just missed it, so the question is, is it appropriate to bring it in to the system when it didn't meet the criteria for high priority projects. The MPO Council will be making a decision on that at the next meeting unless they choose to postpone it. Johnson asked if there anything Fort Collins can do to resurrect the [Fort Collins] bypass issue? Phillips responded that it can be resurrected over time, but it can't meet this kind of funding schedule. We are already looking at how to do some kind of alignment study or MIS on a truck route or a bypass and the best alignments to consider. Then maybe we can go before the MPO Council during the next update to the regional plan. That project may well be considered, depending on what the criteria is at that time. B.I. TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE FEE - Edminster Phillips stated that this information was presented to the Council Finance Committee two weeks ago and that staff wanted to bring it to the Board as soon as possible in this process. A number of people have just developed additional information. There is a new formula that Susanne will explain. Again, this comes back to this street system concept of our streets being transportation and the maintenance fee is proposed for maintenance only. There is no construction money involved in this, it is just to maintain what we have. Some of our information and need is based on the growth of the system. Rich Richter, Pavement Management Program Manager: Discussed pavement management program. The streets are tested annually and data is entered into a computer program and stays current as far as the condition of streets. It is difficult to go out and physically look at 360 miles of streets on a regular basis. He looks at as many as he can but there are some limitations. This program is helpful in that it does a cost benefit analysis, also. ki Pavement Life Cycle: If we spend $1 on pavement when it is between good and fair condition, that same dollar, five years down the road, will cost $445. The target for us is to get the pavement when it is in the stage of still, actually, in good to fair condition. We try to spend the majority of our dollars at this point. An advantage of having the data entered into the Life Cycle Program is we can then analyze what will happen to the pavement in the future and we can project what will happen to the entire system. Types maintenance we do are: crack sealing, patching, concrete replacement, curb and gutters, sidewalks, access ramps at intersections, overlays, seal coat, etc. Much of it is routine maintenance. Bruce Juelfs: Discussed some service areas that have unfunded needs such as snow and ice removal. He explained that some alternative de-icers are liquid magnesium chloride. This is a pro -active move in case of an advancing storm, especially during rush hour situations. It doesn't allow the snow and ice to bond to the pavement surface. We could buy some time this way, during the rush hours, when trucks are trapped in traffic jams. Another alternative product would be mined salt. It is an abrasive salt and is colored. Gives a traction effect. When storm is over, it dissolves and melts the ice. Another concern is pedestrian walkways, bikeways. Right now they are done by contractors. We feel the equipment used is inadequate. Privatization sometimes ends up with not enough bidders and the low bidders are not always qualified to do the work. Sweeping: Approximately 1,450 lane miles need to be covered. Have been able to buy new equipment that is productive. Current, better equipment has doubled in cost. We are presently looking at an additional 10 miles per year in new streets. The Board discussed environmental concerns about de-icer products. Bruce will pass on more information to the Board about the de-icing products. Bracke discussed the signal system and its maintenance. Very costly. Also issues of concern are pavement painting and signs. Edminster said that we do not have the reserves that we had in the past. Sales tax expires in 1997, and Council has asked that we reduce dependency on this tax. We need to re -introduce the Transportation Maintenance Fee, we are actually changing the revenue mix. We would then have the option of increasing the fee to make up for any revenues that we might lose, such as the sales tax. Would give us more flexibility. Cost for residential homeowner: $4 per month. Business or other category: low ($13), high ($66), and medium ($30) volume. She added that staff needs a full work session with Council on January 23, 1996. Between now and then, will meet with Citizen Focus Group. People invited will be handpicked for their interest and representation of the community. Edminster said that if we get the go ahead for the Transportation Maintenance Fee, we will have specific public meetings for all. Will then propose by ordinance that this be reinstated, possibly the first Council meeting in March. Could then begin collecting the fee in mid-96. Gerety said that there seems to be a consensus that there is a need. He asked the members if the Transportation Maintenance Fee is the most reasonable way? Does the Board feel that a fee is an appropriate way to raise the money as opposed to going to the voters for an additional tax. And if the fee is reasonable, is the amount reasonable? Valentine said that he likes the concept of the TMF because it is at least attempting to get the cost of maintaining the roads where it belongs. The people who are using the roads more are paying a higher fee. He said he would like to see the fee directly on the heavier users. The Board discussed cost of service study. Feels 29% should be applied to maintenance. Gerety said if there is a shortfall, make sure we recover the cost. TMF is a reasonable way to close the shortfall. Timing is poor, there will be confusion about the 1/4 cent tax. There was a lot of discussion about the low end users as opposed to the high end users. Some didn't feel that this was really a fair balance. Gerety said that there needs to be a higher variance in dollar amount between residential and high use business. He said he will draw up a letter to the City Council reflecting the comments tonight. B.2. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Daggett Daggett announced that the external bus advertising program has been put in place. All rear panels have been sold for the year, half of side panels have been sold and staff anticipates selling all by end of January 1996. He mentioned that there are three members of the Transportation Board on the Citizen Advisory Committee: Ray, Donn, and Alan. The TDP is now a seven year plan as opposed to a five year plan. It will be in front of City Council on January 16, 1996 for their approval for this particular plan. Presentation: Concept: (1) Vision statement, (2) Transit goals, (3) Policies. Will center discussion tonight on policies. Need approval before presenting to City Council. Project began in December 1994. Continued on schedule until now. Performed much research; travel behavior, transit needs, identifying community problem. Extensive public outreach; random samples of 4400 households, focus groups, one on one interviews. Established and worked with Advisory Committee, been to Transportation Board and City Council study sessions, done extensive public outreach in the form of newsletters. Have prepared a vision plan and vision statement through year 2015. Analyzed what it means to be financially constrained in terms of Transit, worked with the communities of Loveland, Berthoud, Timnath, Wellington, and Larimer County to create three separate but coordinated TDPs. Worked with other planning processes to coordinate the TDP with those; City Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, City Master Street Plan, CSU Master Facility Plan. Service Improvements: Increased service frequency, increased service hours (A.M.), service productivity, short and direct service. Moe complimented John's group and all the consultants. Thought they did a great job. Gerety noted that there was general support for the program amongst the board members. He said to make sure that we take advantage of market; rapidly moving between activity centers, coordinating with the schools, park shuttle for kids, Christmas shoppers, don't miss out on any special markets, be even more aggressive; lane on College as an example (HOV lane). C.1. RETREAT REVIEW This item was covered after approval of minutes earlier in meeting. C.2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Edminster Edminster said that there is a very critical role being played by Boards and Commissions. Council agreed to this particular model. Once staff has identified all capital improvement needs throughout the City, they will take those needs to their respective Boards: T-Board, Natural Resources, etc. Boards will then help to sort, prioritize and make recommendations to them and City Council that will act as the executive committee and make decisions about not only what priority, but what avenues will be taken to fund these projects. This Board will probably have the lion's share of the work because Transportation Services will have the lion's share of the capital projects: 6-8 year time horizon, $62 million worth of capital projects in terms of streets or transportation systems, $14 million of bikeways, $8 million for transit development, in addition to visioning. The path for this Board will be to work with staff to come up with a list to help staff prioritize before going before Council. The crunch period for the Board will be from about April 1996 to August 1996. C.3. T-NOTES a. Master Transportation Plan - Nothing new to report b. Parking Plan - Is study only applied to downtown? Bigger problems in south strips. Setting up phases presently. 0 C. Pedestrian Plan - Reavis offered Scope of Work handouts. d. Transportation Demand Management - Reavis noted it had been moved to mid - February City Council date. CA. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS - Paul V: Attended CSU meeting - Master Plan for the Future. Exciting plan. Want a pedestrian oriented campus, parking garages, major changes between Elizabeth and Pitkin, west side of college will be main entrance to campus, want to eliminate parking garage, new academic buildings, move South Drive, put Pitkin Street on through to Shields, 40 year plan is to have 35,000 students on campus, academics would be all east of Loomis, west of that would be dorms, sports facilities, track will be moved towards Shields, plan to do dorms south of Holiday Inn, plan to build long-term student parking south of Holiday Inn, run shuttles back and forth, more housing on west end of Moby Gym. - Sara: Regarding public meetings, staff could use this opportunity to discuss car pooling, will look into it. C.5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS None C.6. STAFF REPORTS Phillips passed out City Comforts books. C.7. NEXT AGENDA MPO Process ? C.8. OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting is January 3, 1996, meeting place to be determined. Staff will check with the Library or Streets. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Micki White Cindy Scott Secretary Secretary 7